284 



State Board of Agriculture meeting he told of the 

 efforts made by westeru farmers to rid the country 

 of sweet clover, as they considered it a noxious weed 

 of the worst character. They even went to the extent 

 of proposing that beekeepers be driven out of the 

 country, because bees help to spread sweet clover; 

 but of late these same farmers have come to realize 

 that the much-despised sweet clover is a forage crop, 

 second in importance only to alfalfa. When fruit- 

 growers argue that bees destroy fruit they are taking 

 the same stand taken by western farmers in their 

 misguided crusade against sweet clover. ***** 

 Every fruit-grower ought to realize the positive ne- 

 cessity of delaying spraying operations until the 

 blossoms are so far gone that the bees have ceased to 

 work upon them. To spray trees in bloom, thus 

 poisoning the bees, is a case parallel to that of the 

 miser who killed the goose that laid the golden egg. 



We have always felt that articles in a 

 bee-journal along this line are not very 

 convincing to fruit-growers, for they natu- 

 rally think that the bee-journal is prejudic- 

 ed. However, after our special numbers on 

 bees and fruit we have noted with a con- 

 siderable degree of satisfaction that the 

 beekeepers make use of the material thus 

 furnished in stirring up an interest in their 

 local papers and in the farm magazines, 

 ^peed the day when the truth may become 

 nv'dely known! 



GraHiam, who, it i 



For some months past we have been 

 receiving complaints regai'ding Mr. C. I. 

 Graham, formerly of Oroville, Cal., but now 

 of Reno, Nevada. It is alleged that he has 

 been moving diseased bees from place to 

 place, scattering foul brood wherever he has 

 been. It is also claimed that his dealings 

 with several persons have been unsatisfac- 

 tory; that he buys or rents bees, alleging 

 that he is going to form a big stock com- 

 pany. 



Other parties go on to say that his 

 methods are slovenly and careless; that if 

 he had foul brood every beekeeper in range 

 would get it, that he somehow gets control 

 of a lot of bees and moves them into a new 

 territory, and that it apparently makes no 

 difference to him (Graham) whether the 

 bees are diseased or not; that when he is 

 through extracting he scatters his scraps 

 and leavings of combs out to be cleaned out 

 by rohbers; and, of course, the bees of his 

 neighbors, if there is disease in such combs, 

 would be infected. Among these complain- 

 ants are several men of standing. 



In the American Bee Journal for Novem- 

 ber, page 368, a clipping was published to 

 the effect that this Mr. Graham was arrested 

 and found guilty of exposing diseased 

 brood-combs, to the injury of the bees in 



GLEANINGS IN BEE CULTURE 



the vicinity. We were also informed that 

 another case against him was pending. Just 

 what the outcome of this was we have not 

 been advised. ^ 



Believing it is always fair to give the 

 accused a chance to defend himself we 

 ^vrote to Mr. Graham, explaining the nature 

 of the complaints, and under date of Feb 

 21, at Reno, Nevada, he writes a very good 

 letter, from, which we quote the following: 



I have no desire to attack any one; and the at- 

 tacks made upon me are unjustified and unjustifiable. 

 I have been made the subject of bitter persecution 

 here in order to drive me out of this field as a com- 

 petitor. The article in the American Bee Journal, 

 to which you refer, was furnished by Inspector 

 Guthrie, of this county, for that purpo.se, and was \ 

 tlie result of malice and ill will — a feeling that I do 

 not reciprocate. It is true that I was arrested, and 

 tried in a justice's court here last fall for exposing 

 diseased bee-combs. My apiary was visited by the 

 inspector when he knew I was absent, and he took 

 with him two men who were my avowed enemies; 

 and while they did not produce any diseased bee- 

 combs, as they would have done if they had found 

 any, I could not, with these three hostile witnesses 

 against me, escape conviction. ... I am here, and 

 here I am going to stay; and as I am not guilty of 

 any wrong-doing I have no fear of what my ene 

 mies can do to me. I have been taught from child- 

 hood to return good for evil, and I shall do so in this 

 unfortunate controversy. "When the opportunity ar- 

 rives that, with my 23 years of experience as a bee- 

 keeper, I can do Inspector Guthrie and the other 

 beekeepers of this community where I live a good 

 turn, I shall be on the spot to do it. 



We can not think there was any malice 

 or ill will on the part of Inspector Guthrie. 

 As inspector of foul brood he had a duty 

 to perform. 



Wliile we do not believe that Mr. Graham 

 is malicious, yet the testimony in the form 

 of various letters before us would indicate 

 that he is slovenly, careless, and neglectful 

 in his methods — so much so that his bees 

 would readily get foul brood if it Avere 

 anywhere around. It would appear, also, 

 that if he got the disease he would not be 

 greatly concerned about it. When such a 

 man practices migratory beekeeping, mov- 

 ing bees from place to place by the carload, 

 he would make trouble for beekeepei-s in 

 any territory where he might go. Either 

 Mr. Graham (if the above charges are true) 

 should mend his methods, or his bees should 

 not be admitted into localities protected by 

 law. Assuming that lie means just what he 

 says, he should at once clean up his bees 

 and keep them clean (if he has not done so 

 already), or go out of the business. His 

 neighbors have moral as well as legal rights 

 that should be respected. It is surely up to 

 Mr. Graham if he has been scattering foul 

 brood unintentionally or otherwise to do his 

 neighbor beekeepers " a good turn." Will 

 lie do it? We are going to take him at his 

 word that he will. 



